Citation Nr: 19192596 Decision Date: 12/10/19 Archive Date: 12/10/19 DOCKET NO. 14-35 245A DATE: December 10, 2019 ORDER A rating in excess of 10 percent effective September 16, 2011 and thereafter, for right wrist degenerative joint disease is denied. FINDING OF FACT During the period on appeal, the Veteran’s right wrist degenerative joint disease has been characterized by no more than range of motion measurements included palmar flexion from 0 to 20 degrees, dorsiflexion from 0 to 20 degrees, ulnar deviation from 0 to 20 degrees, and radial deviation from 0 to 10 degrees. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a rating in excess of 10 percent, effective September 16, 2011, for right wrist degenerative joint disease have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.321, 3.326(a), 4.7, 4.10, 4.14, 4.21, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5215 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active duty service from August 2009 to September 2011. The Veteran’s appeal was remanded by the Board in June 2018 for additional development. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent effective September 16, 2011 and thereafter, for right wrist degenerative joint disease Disability evaluations are determined by comparing the Veteran’s current symptomatology with the criteria set forth in the Schedule For Rating Disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. Part 4 (2019). Diagnostic Code 5215 provides the rating criteria for limitation of motion in the wrist. A 10 percent rating is warranted if the dorsiflexion is less than 15 degrees or if the palmar flexion is limited to 0 degrees. Otherwise no rating is given for limitation of motion. Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.59, painful motion should be considered limitation of motion, even though a range of motion may be possible beyond the point when pain sets in. See Powell v. West, 13 Vet. App. 31, 34 (1999); Hicks v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 417, 421 (1995). When 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 is raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the record, even in non-arthritis contexts, the Board should address its applicability. See Burton v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 1 (2011) (holding that the Board had failed to address painful motion and the applicability of 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 to an initial disability rating for residuals of a left shoulder injury with surgical repair). If the Veteran’s shoulder disabilities do not warrant a compensable rating under the appropriate diagnostic codes based on limitation of motion, the minimum compensable rating (10 percent) may be assigned where there is satisfactory evidence of painful motion. 38 C.F.R. § 4.59; Burton, 25 Vet. App. at 1. Disability of the musculoskeletal system is primarily the inability, due to damage or infection in the parts of the system, to perform the normal working movements of the body with normal excursion, strength, speed, coordination, and endurance. It is essential that the examination on which ratings are based adequately portray the anatomical damage, and the functional loss, with respect to all these elements. The functional loss may be due to absence of part, or all, of the necessary bones, joints and muscles, or associated structures, or to deformity, adhesions, defective innervation, or other pathology, or it may be due to pain, supported by adequate pathology and evidenced by visible behavior of the claimant undertaking the motion. Weakness is as important as limitation of motion, and a part which becomes painful on use must be regarded as seriously disabled. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.10, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59. In July 2012, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination. The examiner noted range of motion measurements including palmar flexion to 60 degrees and wrist dorsiflexion to 60 degrees. In an October 2014 treatment note the Veteran indicated that he avoids heavy lifting with his right wrist and compensates by using his left wrist. In the Veteran’s February 2018 hearing testimony, he argued against a rating reduction. However, the Veteran’s right wrist disability has never been rated more than 10 percent and this appeal arises from a September 2013 rating decision which granted the Veteran a 10 percent rating effective September 16, 2011. The Veteran reported that he is almost always experiencing dull pain and must find comfortable positions for his wrist. He also testified that a wrist surgery has left him with screws in his wrist that interfere with the movement of his wrist. The Veteran was not sure when he received his last VA examination but stated that he believes his condition has worsened since his last examination. In February 2018, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination. The Veteran reported a history of a right scaphoid fracture in 2010. The Veteran’s range of motion measurements included palmar flexion from 0 to 20 degrees, dorsiflexion from 0 to 20 degrees, ulnar deviation from 0 to 20 degrees, and radial deviation from 0 to 10 degrees. In May 2019, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination. The clinician noted a diagnosis for degenerative joint disease, status post scaphoid and ulnar fracture. The Veteran’s range of motion measurements include palmar flexion from 0 to 55 degrees, dorsiflexion from 0 to 50 degrees, ulnar deviation from 0 to 35 degrees, and radial deviation from 0 to 20 degrees. In an October 2019 lay statement, the Veteran indicated that he continues to have wrist pain and that a 10 percent rating for the pain and inconvenience is inadequate. During the period on appeal, the Veteran’s right wrist degenerative joint disease has been characterized by no more than range of motion measurements included palmar flexion from 0 to 20 degrees, dorsiflexion from 0 to 20 degrees, ulnar deviation from 0 to 20 degrees, and radial deviation from 0 to 10 degrees. The preponderance of the evidence is against the claim. A 10 percent maximum schedular rating and not more is warranted for painful motion under 38 C.F.R. § 4.59, Diagnostic Code 5215. Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Department of Veterans Affairs The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.